Dispute resolution analysis: The Senior Courts Costs Office held that Damages Based Agreements (DBAs) in a high-value probate case were unenforceable due to non-compliance with the DBA Regulations 2013. The court rejected cost claims under both the DBAs and purported new retainers, emphasising strict adherence to statutory requirements. This ruling underscores the critical importance of carefully drafting funding arrangements and retainers in line with regulations. It serves as a stark reminder to practitioners of the risks associated with non-compliant DBAs, potentially resulting in inability to recover costs. The case also reaffirms the court's commitment to public policy, administration of justice, and consumer protection in assessing such agreements. Practical implications written by James Miller of 18 St John Street Chambers.

This Practice Note discusses damage by tree roots, including the duty between neighbours, foreseeability, causation, possible measures to minimise or prevent damage and remedies. Liability The leading case on damage to property caused by encroaching tree roots is Delaware Mansions v Westminster City Council, in which the House of Lords stated that liability is to be determined by applying the concepts underlying the law of nuisance, namely reasonableness between neighbours (real and figurative) and reasonable foreseeability. The court confirmed that ‘the label nuisance or negligence is treated as of no real significance’ and that ‘the concern of the common law lies in working out the fair and just content and incidents of a neighbour’s duty rather than affixing a label and inferring the extent of the duty from it’. In particular, liability is determined by the answers to the following questions: • what is the duty between neighbours with regard to trees? • did the roots of the tree cause damage to a neighbouring property? • was that harm reasonably foreseeable? • were there any practicable

If the adjoining owner does not appeal the further award within the 14-day time limit, what can the building owner do? Can they offer to remedy the works, raise a dispute regarding the costs of the works or propose mediation, for example? The award is final and binding, although both owners have 14 days from when the award is served within which to appeal the award to the County Court under section 10(17) of the Party Wall etc Act 1996 (PWA 1996). The

The monetary compensation awarded by law to a person for the legal wrong done to him.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal ruled that it was not possible for a defendant to enter into an enforceable damages based agreement (DBA) with a solicitor which is calculated based on damages that they resisted paying or transferring to a claimant. Such a DBA would be unlawful and could not comply with the Damages Based Agreements Regulations 2013 SI 2013/609. A DBA can only be attached to sums ultimately recovered by a client. It was a necessary pre-requisite to the entitlement of a representative to payment under a DBA that the client had made a recovery from the other side to the litigation. This decision appears to entirely prohibit the use of a DBA for a non-counterclaiming defendant. Written by Nicholas Lee, managing director and mediator at Paragon Costs Solutions.

HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has updated the Damages Claims Portal (DCP) issue to response guidance for claims proceeding under CPR PD 51ZB. The updates include a new section dealing with making and responding to general applications, and an updated trial bundle section, for claims which are proceeding in the early adopters programme. This programme applies to a selection of courts in which claims in the DCP can progress further in the digital journey.

HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has updated the Damages Claims Portal (DCP) issue to response guidance for claims proceeding under CPR PD 51ZB. The updates to the guidance highlight and clarify the correct procedure when providing a draft order with an application. When making an application, legal representatives are requested to type the required order into the relevant box and also to upload a draft order as a separate document.

HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has updated the Damages Claims Portal (DCP) issue to response guidance for claims proceeding under CPR PD 51ZB. The updates specifically revise the sections on settlement and discontinuance, enabling parties to notify the court of a resolved or withdrawn claim directly through the DCP.

HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has updated the Damages Claims Portal (DCP) issue to response guidance for claims proceeding under CPR PD 51ZB. The updates to the guidance largely reflect changes to CPR PD 51ZB that have come into force since the guidance was last published.

HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has updated the Damages Claims Portal (DCP) issue to response guidance for claims proceeding under CPR PD 51ZB. The updates to the guidance largely reflect changes to CPR PD 51ZB that have come into force since the guidance was last published. HMCTS has also published template orders for directions for use in the intermediate track and multi-track.

HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has updated the Damages Claims Portal (DCP) issue to response guidance for claims proceeding under CPR PD 51ZB. The updates to the guidance reflect features recently introduced to the DCP, allowing parties to raise queries within the DCP and inform the court where a claim has been settled or discontinued using the DCP.

Public Law analysis: In Millbrook Healthcare Ltd v Devon County Council, the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) held that the assessment of whether a breach is sufficiently serious is not directly relevant to determining whether damages will be an adequate remedy at the interim stage of a procurement dispute, such that damages may still be awarded. In particular, the TCC considered well-known case law authorities, which provide that damages are only available in procurement challenges where the contracting authority's breach is ‘sufficiently serious’ (a test derived in EU law). The point was recently considered in Braceurself v NHS England, in which the TCC held that a sufficiently serious breach should be determined by looking at the nature and quality of the breach, rather than the consequences. The effect of the breach itself was not decisive in establishing whether it was sufficiently serious to award damages. However, in Millbrook, the TCC had to consider (i) whether there had been a ‘sufficiently serious breach’ and (ii) if so, whether damages would be an adequate remedy. Written by James Lupton, director, Elinor Jackson, senior associate and Sam Pringle, senior associate at DWF Law LLP.